Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council has failed to carry out meaningful engagement with residents and did not properly publicise the application. Mr X says there was also a delay before objections were published on the Council’s website. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him stress and he has been put to time and trouble dealing with the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website.
5. Mr X has raised many concerns about how the Council notified residents about the application. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault by the Council. Mr X was still aware of the application and commented on the proposal. Mr X has also said there was a delay before resident’s comments were published on the Council’s website, but I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice because of any delay as the information was still available for the case officer to consider in their assessment of the proposal.
6. Furthermore, the planning application has not yet been determined, therefore any injustice caused by fault with how the Council considered the proposal would be speculative. The Council may still refuse planning permission, and the development would therefore not go ahead.
7. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman